Would a Robin-Hood style tax be good?

[NWRatCon]

Over 40% is almost half, so the bullshit is all yours.

Clearly Math is not your strong suit, and logic is a foreign concept. I have neither the time or inclination to address all the fallacies and assumptions you've managed to include in such short and insubstantial posts.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I would if there were somewhere else better. But it doesnt change the fact its wrong.

So quoth the proletariat, when confronted with the notion that they could leave their place of employment if they didn't like the terms set forth by the bourgeoisie.

The whole point is that we can squeeze as much out of you as we can up to the point where it becomes in your best interest to go elsewhere. In the exact same way, an employer can squeeze as much from their employees as they can, for as little pay as they can get away with, up to the point where it becomes in their best interest to go elsewhere. That is how the free market works.

Are you saying that Capitalism is wrong? Are you a Communist Johnny?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thanks for those estimates.
Here are my own back-of-the-envelope calculations.
First, individual Income taxes do not raise $3.46 Trillion. Individual Income taxes only account for $1.48 Trillion of federal revenues. Payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) raise 1.07 trillion. Corporate income taxes raise $0.34 Trillion. And as we are all painfully aware, the federal government borrows to cover budget deficits.

OK so make that

PPS - ...the sales tax would have to be -57.96%- 24.79%. However there would also be the associated costs of collecting and accounting for that tax, so -65%- 27.38% sounds like a more likely number.

PPPS - The above is based on taxing EVERYTHING at the retail level. If you exempted food (and other "non-essential" goods) it's likely that that tax rate would have to be around -100%- 42.12%.​

I am not talking about replacing payroll taxes or corporate income taxes with a sales tax. I’m only proposing to replace the individual income tax which for 2019 was $1.48 Trillion.

Now, to get an estimate of what sales tax rate would raise this amount, let’s extrapolate from the sales tax revenues in my state – Texas. In 2019, the state of Texas raised $34 billion from a population of 29 million with a state sales tax rate of 6.25%. If we extrapolate that to a US population of 328 million, and a national sales tax rate of 25% we get $1.54 Trillion, which is more than the US raised from personal income tax. Texas does not tax groceries or medicines. But they may tax other items deemed essential. So, tack on say an extra 5% to cover those, and you wind up with a national sales tax rate of 30%.

That may seem high, but when you consider that it’s only on non-essential goods and services, and that it’s compensated by the fact that individuals would not pay any income tax, it’s actually pretty good. My 2019 income tax for example was about $20,000. And I know for sure I did not spend anything close to $66,000 on non-essential goods and services. So, I would have done a lot better under a 30% national sales tax than under the current income tax. I think most people would. Those who don’t do so well are those who spend frivolously on things they don’t really need. That’s not low-income people.

That does sound good, except for the 99.22% of Americans who are in the tax bracket where they pay LESS than 33% in taxes. Of course, a whole lot depends on what you consider "non-essential goods and services", doesn't it?

Are shoes "non-essential"? Is the second pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the fourth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the eighth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the sixteenth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the thirty-second pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the sixty-fourth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the one hundered and twenty-eighth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Who gets to decide?

And, of course, since people tend not to notice money that they don't actually get, the level of taxation through something visible like a sales tax means that people will tend to notice it more.

 

[Waddy]

Clearly Math is not your strong suit, and logic is a foreign concept. I have neither the time or inclination to address all the fallacies and assumptions you've managed to include in such short and insubstantial posts.

I accept your surrender.

 

[rahl]

Again, how do you figure? [/WUOTE]
Uh, 40 years of data.

More than half of the federal budget is spent on entitlements and other programs that mostly benefit the poor.

Which wouldn’t be needed had the trickle down revolution not happened.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Uh, 40 years of data.

Ok, if you say so. Just "data".

Is that really supposed to be an answer?

 

[rahl]

Ok, if you say so. Just "data".

Is that really supposed to be an answer?

I’ve already cited the data in this thread. So have others.

 

[Carleen]

Should we take form the rich and give to the poor?

Yes. Since we have been taking from the poor to give to the rich since the 1980’s And they are now making more money than about 80% of the population so I think it is time.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I’ve already cited the data in this thread. So have others.

No you didn't.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Should we take form the rich and give to the poor?

Yep, ‘til there are no rich no more.

 

[Felis Leo]

Conversely, when are taxes for the rich low enough? How low should they be?

The rate should be no lower than the taxes that are assessed upon the poorest within our society.

 

[Randomutation]

Do have any numbers, such as what the NST rate (percentage) would have to be in order to raise about $2T annually?

A rough estimate. Please see post 241

 

[Randomutation]

Are shoes "non-essential"? Is the second pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the fourth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the eighth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the sixteenth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the thirty-second pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the sixty-fourth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Is the one hundered and twenty-eighth pair of shoes in one year "non-essential"? Who gets to decide?

Good point. Shoes and other items of clothing are both functional and fashionable. You pay not just for function but also for style and “brand”. There are a couple of options for handling the sales tax.

The government could set a a threshold price for functionality. For the sake of illustration let’s say that the government determines that a pair of generic strictly functional shoes has a value of $30. Anything beyond that would be considered the cost for style and brand. So if you buy a pair of shoes for $30 you pay no tax. And if you buy a pair for $40 then you pay tax on $10. This idea could be extended to other items that have both essential and non-essential aspects – such as hotel rooms and transportation. The difficulty is that the list of such items could be large, and setting a fair threshold for each could be difficult and would have to be updated periodically.

A better alternative might be to just allow everyone say a $2000 exemption each year. This would mean that the first $2000 of non-essential items they purchase each year is tax free. All non-essential items after that are taxable.

And, of course, since people tend not to notice money that they don't actually get, the level of taxation through something visible like a sales tax means that people will tend to notice it more.

Yes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe they’ll take more of an interest in how their government spends that money.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good point. Shoes and other items of clothing are both functional and fashionable. You pay not just for function but also for style and “brand”. There are a couple of options for handling the sales tax.

The government could set a a threshold price for functionality. For the sake of illustration let’s say that the government determines that a pair of generic strictly functional shoes has a value of $30. Anything beyond that would be considered the cost for style and brand. So if you buy a pair of shoes for $30 you pay no tax. And if you buy a pair for $40 then you pay tax on $10. This idea could be extended to other items that have both essential and non-essential aspects – such as hotel rooms and transportation. The difficulty is that the list of such items could be large, and setting a fair threshold for each could be difficult and would have to be updated periodically.

A better alternative might be to just allow everyone say a $2000 exemption each year. This would mean that the first $2000 of non-essential items they purchase each year is tax free. All non-essential items after that are taxable.




Yes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe they’ll take more of an interest in how their government spends that money.

I am an advocate of eliminating the income tax, and taxing only non-essentials with a national sales tax. This would fall in line with my thoughts. The quantity shouldn't matter as much as the necessity of it.

 

[Individual]

Yes. Since we have been taking from the poor to give to the rich since the 1980’s And they are now making more money than about 80% of the population so I think it is time.

During the Carter administration I found some truth in what you're saying. Government HAS been taking and giving, only it has been from the working middle class and the rich, giving to the poor,
I worked over 6000 hours without a day off, and earned before taxes about 8 times the previous years wages, and after taxes, State and Federal, my wages increased about $2 per hour worked.
Reagan and his tax cuts did more for the hard working middle class than any other President before or after him has done. I worked for Carters campaign, but ended up voting for Ford.

Would a Robin-Hood style tax be taking the money before it reaches the IRS and distributing it to those claiming to be poor?
Simple solution, end all Federal welfare programs and let the States provide any/all they find to produce desirable results.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Good point. Shoes and other items of clothing are both functional and fashionable. You pay not just for function but also for style and “brand”. There are a couple of options for handling the sales tax.

The government could set a a threshold price for functionality. For the sake of illustration let’s say that the government determines that a pair of generic strictly functional shoes has a value of $30. Anything beyond that would be considered the cost for style and brand. So if you buy a pair of shoes for $30 you pay no tax. And if you buy a pair for $40 then you pay tax on $10. This idea could be extended to other items that have both essential and non-essential aspects – such as hotel rooms and transportation. The difficulty is that the list of such items could be large, and setting a fair threshold for each could be difficult and would have to be updated periodically.

A better alternative might be to just allow everyone say a $2000 exemption each year. This would mean that the first $2000 of non-essential items they purchase each year is tax free. All non-essential items after that are taxable.




Yes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe they’ll take more of an interest in how their government spends that money.

Your $2K annual allowance (like the “Fair tax” prebate?) has just greatly complicated that ‘simple’ taxation method. That annual “exemption” (at each possible point of sale?) idea would require a national ‘buyer ID’ database (with each seller having online access to it) to implement.

 

[Carleen]

During the Carter administration I found some truth in what you're saying. Government HAS been taking and giving, only it has been from the working middle class and the rich, giving to the poor,
I worked over 6000 hours without a day off, and earned before taxes about 8 times the previous years wages, and after taxes, State and Federal, my wages increased about $2 per hour worked.
Reagan and his tax cuts did more for the hard working middle class than any other President before or after him has done. I worked for Carters campaign, but ended up voting for Ford.

Would a Robin-Hood style tax be taking the money before it reaches the IRS and distributing it to those claiming to be poor?
Simple solution, end all Federal welfare programs and let the States provide any/all they find to produce desirable results.

Reagan paid for his huge tax break for the rich by taxing Social Security.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Reagan paid for his huge tax break for the rich by taxing Social Security.

Hmm... I thought that many (most?) Liberals favored the ‘means testing’ of Social Security (SS) retirement benefits. BTW, I also object to the (effective) reduction of ‘promised’ SS benefits via federal income taxation.

How Are Social Security Benefits Taxed?

If your total income is more than $25,000 for an individual or $32,000 for a married couple filing jointly, you must pay income taxes on your benefits.

www.aarp.org

 

[jonny5]

So quoth the proletariat, when confronted with the notion that they could leave their place of employment if they didn't like the terms set forth by the bourgeoisie.

The whole point is that we can squeeze as much out of you as we can up to the point where it becomes in your best interest to go elsewhere. In the exact same way, an employer can squeeze as much from their employees as they can, for as little pay as they can get away with, up to the point where it becomes in their best interest to go elsewhere. That is how the free market works.

Are you saying that Capitalism is wrong? Are you a Communist Johnny?

No. But its a bad analogy. Govt isnt a free market anymore. Every square inch of the world is controlled by force. You are born into a nation, the majority or those with power force you to comply regardless of the rules they agreed to, and when you try to leave, they kill you imprison you. You might remember states DID try to leave once, and it resulted in a million dead.

This of course if nothing like the labor market, which IS free. You are not forced to work, you can leave anytime and find something better and there are millions of better choices.

There is no better choice than the USA for freedom and capitalism. But it doesnt change the fact that it also does wrong.

 

[jonny5]

Reagan paid for his huge tax break for the rich by taxing Social Security.

No he didnt. That tax went back into SS to make it solvent.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No. But its a bad analogy. Govt isnt a free market anymore. Every square inch of the world is controlled by force. You are born into a nation, the majority or those with power force you to comply regardless of the rules they agreed to, and when you try to leave, they kill you imprison you. You might remember states DID try to leave once, and it resulted in a million dead.

This of course if nothing like the labor market, which IS free. You are not forced to work, you can leave anytime and find something better and there are millions of better choices.

There is no better choice than the USA for freedom and capitalism. But it doesnt change the fact that it also does wrong.

If you want head out on the open ocean and survive off of the fish you catch with your own two hands, no one is going to stop you. No income means no income tax. No property means no property tax. No purchases means no sales tax. That's rugged individualism.

If you choose to participate in a society, you have to abide by the rules of that society and pay the cost of that society.

 

[Waddy]

I don't object to high taxes. I object to how little we get in return from high taxes. Tax me like a European but give me great cradle to grave benefits. If I'm not going to get those benefits, keep my taxes lower.

 

[jonny5]

If you want head out on the open ocean and survive off of the fish you catch with your own two hands, no one is going to stop you. No income means no income tax. No property means no property tax. No purchases means no sales tax. That's rugged individualism.

If you choose to participate in a society, you have to abide by the rules of that society and pay the cost of that society.

What if the society doesnt abide by the rules? Thats my point.

 

[countryboy]

Should we take form the rich and give to the poor?

We already do that.

 

[jonny5]

What if the society doesnt abide by the rules? Thats my point. And really, youre way off topic. You said tax isnt theft. I agree. But spending is fraud, do you disagree? Did the states every agree to allow the federal govt to spend 3 trillion dollars on various social programs?